Dulay v. Carriaga
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: In a civil case for the recovery of a sum of money, the defendant, Manuel R. Dulay, was ordered by the Court of First Instance of Cotabato to pay the plaintiff, Eusebio C. Tanghal, P143,980.00. Subsequently, seventeen parcels of land belonging to Dulay were levied upon and sold at an execution sale to Tanghal, who was the highest bidder, for P82,598.00. 2. Procedural History: Within the redemption period, Dulay redeemed eight of the levied properties by paying the auction sale prices, totaling P17,017.00, and received Certificates of Redemption. However, upon Tanghal's motion, the respondent judge declared these redemptions null and void, citing the case of Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Mirang, which held that partial redemption is not permitted and that the entire judgment debt must be paid, not just the purchase price. 3. The Petition: This petition for certiorari, with preliminary injunction, seeks to annul and set aside the respondent judge's order. The petitioner argues that for properties sold at an execution sale, the amount payable for redemption is the purchase price, not the entire judgment debt, and that the Mirang case is not controlling due to differing factual circumstances, as it involved the redemption of mortgaged property sold at a foreclosure sale governed by special laws.
Issue(s)
Whether the redemption of eight (8) out of seventeen (17) parcels of land sold at an execution sale is valid; and whether the redemption price should be the purchase price of the redeemed properties or the entire judgment debt.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The order of the respondent judge dated January 11, 1978, is annulled and set aside. The temporary restraining order is made permanent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of piece-meal redemption and the redemption price: The Court held that there is merit in the petition. In the redemption of properties sold at an execution sale, the amount payable is no longer the judgment debt, but the purchase price. This is in accordance with Section 26, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which states that the judgment debtor or redemptioner may redeem the property from the purchaser within 12 months after the sale, by paying the purchaser the amount of his purchase, with interest thereon up to the time of redemption, together with taxes paid by the purchaser after the purchase, if any. The Court clarified that the case of Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Mirang is not controlling because it involved the redemption of mortgaged property sold at a foreclosure sale, where special laws and the mortgagee's charter required the payment of the entire indebtedness. In contrast, the present case involves the redemption of property levied upon and sold at public auction to satisfy a judgment, and there is no charter that requires the payment of sums of money other than those provided for in Section 30 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. The special protection given to government lending institutions in redemption cases is not accorded to judgment creditors in ordinary civil actions. Therefore, the redemption of eight parcels by paying their respective purchase prices was valid, and the respondent judge erred in declaring it null and void.
Main Doctrine
In the redemption of properties sold at an execution sale, the amount payable is the purchase price, not the entire judgment debt. Piece-meal redemption is permissible.